SteveS55

Well, it’s pretty clear to me that people apparently find it difficult to answer the following question: “What, if anything, does a Progressive Christian accept which can be said to be orthodox (traditional) doctrine?” And, how does that differ from the garden variety Lutheran, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Christian? These are fairly straight forward questions; nothing tricky or clever about them. Peace. Steve

Have a good day at work, Pete. Perhaps we can take this up at a later date. Peace. Steve

Thanks, Joseph. I understand where most people are coming from in regard to the framework of Progressive Christianity. I think Spong, Borg and others have been very helpful to Christians attempting to find a way out of fundamentalist beliefs. But, I do have a few thoughts of my own. I get the idea that Progressive Christians want to be free from doctrinal limitations. However, since they still claim to be “Christian”, there must be some element of doctrine involved in their beliefs and practice. Jesus, Christ and the Trinity are central to Christianity, so regardless of one’s “personal vision of the mystery”, without these central tenets, there is no “Christianity”. My impression of Progressive Christianity so far is that it is merely a reaction to Protestant fundamentalism, rather than a specific movement within the Church as a whole. Unless one thinks the central ideas of Christianity are "fundamentalist" views, there should still be some acceptance of orthodoxy, even among the most progressive Christians. The converse of fundamentalism is not necessarily liberal or progressive Christianity, but rather, syncretism. It seems to me that Progressive Christianity is perhaps syncretic, picking and choosing among various doctrines, and even borrowing from other traditions. One then attempts to understand Christianity in a manner that comfortably fits an individual’s personal experience of reality. But, since beliefs are left to the individual, they cannot be consistently applied among all Christians. A Progressive Christian is then left with a synthesis of various beliefs and practices, without having experienced the depth of any one religion or tradition. Or, they are left with nothing at all. Peace. Steve

I think Roy’s question related to how orthodox or “traditional” Christianity views Jesus; his purpose for entering the world. From that Christian viewpoint, Jesus was unique from all other persons, so his arrival signifies much more than the birth of every other human being. The “how” of his birth is unimportant when compared to his purpose. According to Christian doctrine Jesus had a distinct mission, unlike any other person. So, to say the “why” of Jesus’ existence is the same as any other person’s “why” is incorrect if we are attempting to answer this question from a “Christian” perspective. To say that there is essentially no difference in the “whys” is to merely express an opinion as to what one does or does not believe. The second part of Roy’s question is rather interesting, because he asks about the “Progressive Christian” perspective on this. As far as I know, there is no Progressive Christian doctrine separate from orthodox Christianity. The question for me is if one claims to be a “Progressive Christian”, does that person not hold orthodox Christian doctrinal views? For as long as I’ve been reading the posts on this forum, I’m not sure I have even run across a Progressive Christian. But, if there is one out there, I would enjoy reading their response to Roy’s question, or a response to what is explicit in my post. By the way, when I refer to “orthodox”, I am referring to the accepted Christian doctrine at the time of the early Church, beginning with the Council of Nicaea and prior to the Reformation. Peace. Steve

I’m not sure that the “traditional Christian” view of why Jesus was born is the same as the orthodox view. There are so many denominational and non-denominational Christian Churches these days that it would probably be hard to find agreement. From an orthodox standpoint, I think it could be said that the reason Jesus came into the world was purely revelatory. It was through Jesus that the Triune nature of God was revealed, as well as the union of God’s divine and our own human natures as a result of the Incarnation. At least, I don’t think this view is contrary to orthodox doctrine. But, a Southern Baptist minister, or a Progressive Christian might have a whole different understanding. I just don’t know. Peace, Steve

That sounds like a great place to be, Soma. When I consider duality, non-duality, unity, etc., I sometimes reflect on the follwoing Zen koan: "If everything returns to the One, where does the One return?" Just a little something to muddy the waters, and I haven't made much progress with this koan! Peace. Steve

Very well said, Soma. I don’t doubt that you are correct in what you say. While I rather vaguely get that everything is inter-connected, I have never been able to understand the unity, or oneness of things. I guess I’m a dualist at heart! But, you are right; our perspectives change along the path, and perhaps one day I will have that realization. Peace. Steve

When you begin to question whether or not there is an “intrinsic me”, or to put it differently, “no inherent self”, then you are within sight of the gate to enlightenment, in the Eastern sense of the word. But entry is difficult and subtle; something few people are ever able to accomplish in this life. It is the difference between inferential reasoning and realization; it is the difference between the conceptual and the non-conceptual. Hence, another good reason for the Buddhist and Hindu notions of rebirth – there is just too much to accomplish in one lifetime. Peace. Steve

Hi Rom, The problem with the word “morality” is that it is highly abstract, and as you suggest, it includes the proposition that there is an “absolute” or “true” anything. With all due respect to Plato, and many other philosophers, I don’t see things quite that way. There is the nature of something, and then there is what we label it, prior to or even without investigation. Things are the way they are and, in my opinion, nothing else needs to be said about them. I agree with you that “free will” is a highly overrated doctrine. At best, we have limited choice, and even those choices have been largely determined by genetic and environmental factors. But, we act as if we have free will, and if that is illusory, we all suffer from the same illusion. Personally, I think we must act believing we have free will. My opinion with regard to the concept of “morality” is that there is a sort of optimum mode of actions and behaviors which lead to the well-being of the individual and the group. That statement in itself is highly conceptual, but I also believe there is universal acceptance among reasonable people as to what that looks like in practice. As an example, no reasonable person would criticize another for providing warmth to a homeless person in the dead of winter, or giving a morsel of food to a hungry dog. Anyone can give other examples. Without reliance on the word “morality” I might use the word “harmony”. As far as I can tell, there is no “absolute harmony”. There is either harmony or there is not. Still, to an observer, the person who lives in harmony with his or her environment looks like a “moral person”. So, would anyone living “in harmony” with his/her environment kill another being? Without relying on questions of “morality”, I think the answer is no. Understanding we are all part of this reality, with the same problems, desire for happiness, etc., a person would not kill another being. One who realizes the inter-relatedness of all things has no problem with being what people label as “moral”. This is getting a bit long winded, so I’ll stop for now. This is a pretty weighty topic, and I haven’t really come up with an operational definition for what I mean by “harmony”. Peace. Steve

I think it’s possible to make a distinction between what is recognized as “moral” by a particular society versus a truly “moral” action. Somewhere along the evolutionary trail, humans (or their ancestors) finally figured out that it was more beneficial to cooperate with members of a neighboring clan, as opposed to maiming or killing them. Even animals are capable of doing this. I think it’s clear that much of what passes as morality is, and has been, of the relative variety. Those rules of behavior are generally stated in legalistic terms in the form of laws, commandments or precepts. They may change from time to time and I think this is a product of cultural evolution. To be considered a “moral” person, one merely has to stay within the societal boundaries. Personally, I think the truly moral act is one that results in carrying out an intentional, volitional action for the well-being of the individual and those around him/her. So, I think it’s possible not to be regarded as a “moral person” within the letter of the law, but be capable of performing a truly moral act. I guess an image that comes to mind is someone who rescues a child from a burning building. The example is a bit dramatic, but there are people who have done it. Again, personally I think that the truly moral act arises from compassion and is carried out in that spirit. Compassion may or may not be influenced by genetic or cultural evolution, but those who carry out acts of compassion may very well have inherited a genetic predisposition to do so. Still, unless one is a strict determinist, I think there is room to at least consider these actions as somewhere beyond both genetic and cultural evolution. For all I know, “moral law” maybe somehow contained within the fabric of the universe. But, I think it is nearly impossible for people to grasp a concept such as “absolute morality”, so we make up stuff to compensate. Peace. Steve

Fair enough, Paul. There are certainly parts of the States where those kinds of debates grab headlines. Out here in California, we mostly just shake our heads and wonder why these people are so headstrong. If one takes as axiomatic that there is a God, who is creator and sustainer of the universe, then no amount of rational argument or experimental evidence will change their minds. These ideas are in large part culturally and geographically determined which ironically, are also a product of (cultural) evolution. As you point out, the real problem here is the intersection between religion and politics. Do we really want to live in a society where unsubstantiated beliefs are passed off as “truth”? My personal view is that in the States, we are witnessing the death throes of fundamentalist Christianity, so that a minority becomes more and more vocal toward the end. Something which has had great survival value requires a suitable replacement not yet found. Peace. Steve

Hi Paul, I’m not quite clear on why you think scientists in the States would hesitate to study the effects of meditation, yoga, tai chi, or other religious practices. I seriously doubt if they would have any government, or public university funding curtailed. It’s not as though this country is nothing but fundamentalist, religious wing nuts. If that’s the perception abroad, it just ain’t so. As you say, some studies with regard to meditation have shown benefits to the cardiovascular and immune systems. There may be many more yet undetected. I suspect medical science would be extremely interested in findings like these. Many major hospitals in this country include certain “spiritual” practices, like the ones I’ve stated above, as part of a holistic program of treatment for various diseases. Over the many years I’ve practiced meditation, I have never thought that I was conjuring up the supernatural. These days, I’m not even sure what people mean by that. I am quite certain that whatever goes on as a result of meditation is all very natural. Nor have I given a thought to any health “benefits” that may have accrued to me. A spiritual practice is a spiritual practice, plain and simple; such practices have been accepted for centuries, because they produce results. I welcome scientific study of such things, and one day we may very well find out how it works. But, since that could be long after I’m gone, I will continue to practice without explanation. Peace. Steve

That’s a very nice article about Thomas Merton. He and Meister Eckhart have probably been the most influential Christian writers in my own spiritual development. I have a contemplative Catholic background, so I have found the same ease of entry into the study and practice of Buddhism as Merton did. For me, it is the realization of the wisdom of emptiness (of self) and compassion where contemplative Christianity and Buddhism intersect. Each has a different doctrinal understanding, but both agree that such a realization marks the end of suffering. Peace. Steve

I’m glad you mentioned the “Rule”, Matteo. Among all of the current Christian monastic communities, the Benedictine Order has had perhaps the longest amount of time to develop. And the “Rule” may be one of the earliest methodologies aimed at the actual “practice” of the Christian life. This kind of methodology, in the form of precepts, is something I have found generally lacking among mainstream Christians. I think many get hung up on doctrinal points which they either find completely absurd, or blindly accept in their totality. Then there are those who retain some traditional beliefs and discard others. Outside of perhaps professing Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, following some ritual practices, or doing a few works of mercy, there generally doesn’t seem to be much substance. I think I’ve stated here before that while knowledge of doctrine is helpful in getting the general lay of the land, the spiritual life is more concerned with “practice”, than inferential knowledge. In my opinion, any transformational processes we seek come as a result of practice, which should result in clarity of mind and purpose, as well as being in compassionate relationship with ourselves and others. Benedictine spirituality certainly has a very long tradition of this kind of transformational change. Peace. Steve

I think you hit the nail on the head, Matteo. It is for sure a “person’s” intention and practice that leads to understanding. But, it is also this type of understanding which is not easily communicated, so there are very few qualified teachers. I think is one of the reasons the Buddha refused to speculate about metaphysical things, was that they can lead us deeply into our own deluded minds, and they are really irrelevant for practical purposes. Jesus also seemed to be wary of speculation and so he taught mainly how we could live in order to experience the Kingdom of Heaven. I don’t think that’s so far removed from the notion of Nirvana. Peace. Steve

My personal opinion is that Christianity got off the track early on when it developed the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps for ease of understanding God was described as a hypostasis of three distinct “persons”, in much the same way as Christ was said to be a hypostasis of divine and human natures. Despite the obvious philosophical problem of confusing the universal with the particular, this is the way Christianity has presented God to the faithful down the centuries. This being the case, I think it is only natural for Christians to desire a “personal” relationship with God, because Jesus (and the Early Church Fathers) made it possible. So, in Christianity, the main concern seems to be this desire to be “one with”, or achieve union with God. Tariki points out that “person” has become synonymous with “self” or “ego”. If the “self” exists, it is that which is the experience of God, and so the only experience of what we call “God” is merely the experience of self. Without self, or ego, there is no experience of God. Buddhism rejects the notion of a permanent, inherent “self”. There is the “conventional self”, or “person”, and the “contrived” or illusory self. The notion of Dharmakhaya may be understood simply as the Buddha representing the embodiment of truth (Theravada School), or it may take on a more metaphysical connotation (Mahayana/Zen School), such as an underlying absolute ground or truth-body which some might call “God”. Peace. Steve

I think that’s an excellent question, Hornet. Just on the fly, I would say that if the practice of one’s religion or spiritual tradition is transformative, and it allows a person to transcend the world, then there is truth in it. Peace. Steve

Both Matteo and Joseph referred to the doctrine of “intelligent design”; something I think is subject to a little scrutiny. There is another possibility, rather than the universe exhibiting anything at all which would be subject to an “intelligence” behind (or within) its design. That possibility is simply that the universe we observe and experience is exactly what you get given the nature of its constituent components after processes which began 14 billion years ago. And life, as we know it, is exactly what you get on this particular planet after millions of years of evolution, adaptation to environmental change, mutation and genetic drift. The reason we claim that it is “intelligent” is simply because we have evolved to a point where we are able to survive and flourish (relatively speaking). In a sense, we understand it and we know how to manipulate our environment. We are aware of it. It is our home, and it makes sense to us – it seems to be designed in an intelligent manner. Ironically, this view is a source of our discontent. I think we have lost the excitement and amazement with the fact of our existence. When we look we don't see, and when we listen, we don't hear. We are not "in relationship" with our world. There is “suchness” about reality that we haven’t quite grasped. It is something that requires a radical acceptance of the way things are, and a clarity of mind and purpose that requires a bit of development. Of course, this is all merely my opinion – as Joseph said, they are my “musings”. Peace. Steve

As long as we are expressing opinions, I must say I am much more inclined to come down on the side of evolution and adaptation to changing environmental influences to explain the origin of the species. I don’t find it necessary to posit a creator deity for the fact of our existence, but I think it’s fine if others do. Ironically, I think belief in a creator deity is an artifact of “cultural” evolution! Admittedly, I am not familiar with all of the evidence in support of evolution, or the arguments against it. But, to discard something because we cannot “personally” prove a theory by way of evidence is to enter into an epistemological wasteland. Even those who claim the Bible is the inerrant “word of God” must rely on some fundamental human understanding of how knowledge is acquired. My personal view is that it doesn’t matter to me if I arose from green slime, that 100,000 generations ago my cousin was a fish with jaws, or that I was fashioned by the hand of God Almighty. The beauty, meaning and truth of life are found in the “being” of it, not thinking about how it came to be. We humans are so clever, but often miss the point entirely. Maria Rainer Rilke said that “Being here is so much!” And, John O’Donohue, the great contemporary Irish poet and mystic claimed: “We are here. We are wildly and dangerously free.” Peace. Steve

Hi Renewedfaith 64, I think that's a pretty courageous manifesto to post on a progressive forum like this one. There are probably scientists, avowed atheists, and everything in between here. At the end of the day (or 30 years), after performing their due diligence to the best of there ability, a person is free to draw their own conclusions, and be respected for that view. Peace. Steve

I think a firm belief in hell can be one of the most destructive thoughts humans can entertain. It is destructive of the present moment. But without it “heaven” seems to lose its significance. It doesn't seem "fair" if everyone goes to heaven. For a devout Christian, they both go hand in hand. Without them, Christianity pretty much falls apart; may as well become a Buddhist, but without a belief in rebirth, that falls apart too! I have considered this issue over many years, and I think our main fear is an existential one – what are we to make of the fact of existence, and what (if anything) happens after we die? Is it the eternal void, or bliss/damnation? These questions are so speculative, that to dwell on them destroys the present moment, which is the only moment we really have. If enlightenment exists, or the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, we must already have everything we need to access them. What a shame to miss it! Peace. Steve

I recently finished a book entitled "The Mindful Brain" by Daniel Siegel, M.D. It would have been an easier read if I had a background in neurobiology, but I was still able to understand his salient points. The book has to do with the proposal that various "mindfulness" practices may result in structural changes in the brain. The implication is that various "traits" may eventually result in altered "states" of being, or changes to an individual's personality (for the better hopefully!). Specifically, Dr. Siegel looks at contemplative practices, such as meditation, Centering Prayer, Yoga and Tai Chi, among others, and their potential long term effects on personality changes, and possibly brain structure. He also proposes some operational definitions and alternative ways of understanding such abstract constructs as "mind", "consciousness" and "self". One such possibility to account for the common acceptance of a permanent and independent "self" is the brain's capacity for storage and organization of myriad autobiographical information forming a coherent "history" of the individual. It may be that this historical "story" is an essential component in our belief in a separate self, and the attendant behaviors that result from such a view. In any case, if you are more inclined toward scientific, rather than supernatural explanations for our expereince of reality, you might enjoy this book. I have provided a link to Amazon, where you can read the reviews, etc. http://www.amazon.com/The-Mindful-Brain-Reflection-Cultivation/dp/039370470X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383760976&sr=8-1&keywords=the+mindful+brain Peace. Steve

The recitation of the Nicene, or Apostles’ Creed was simply meant as an identifying mark, or symbol which assisted Christians in recognizing one another according to the same orthodox doctrine. It probably had more to do with group identification than acknowledging a complete understanding of the doctrines involved. It is a part of the Roman Catholic liturgy as well as the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Church and probably others. The words are arranged a bit differently from one tradition to another because they obviously don’t share the same doctrines. It was assumed that the early Christian laity was “common folk” and not capable of following the theological and philosophical arguments required to understand the complete doctrines. The Creeds were meant to boil these down to basic orthodoxy. The fact that they are still recited in these liturgies is a matter of tradition. These days, few people even think about the words they are reciting, but we are no longer “common folk”, so perhaps one should go directly to the doctrines underlying these summary statements and decide for oneself whether it is to be believed or not. Peace. Steve

Meditation without purpose, as an end in itself. It took a long time to get there, but well worth it.

If I have Buddhist doctrine correct, I think Christian theological/Western philosophical musings regarding the doctrine of free will are a bit too speculative to be included in many (if any) Buddhist texts. In any case, for a traditional Buddhist, everything exists as a result of dependent origination, which includes one’s karmic formations, and ceases to exist when the causes and conditions for their existence have been exhausted. In that sense it is very deterministic, but it is the individual person who is “responsible” for determining their own fate through actions born of ignorance regarding the absolute nature of reality. That fate is played out in countless rebirths via the “mental continuum”, or consciousness. It is the law of karma (volitional action) that forms the basis for our behavioral predispositions. It is only necessary for an individual to learn the difference between virtuous and non-virtuous actions (wisdom), and engage in compassionate activities. That is the only real choice required, and it is assumed that choice is the result of reasoning. It is also pretty much assumed this is learned over countless lifetimes. Peace. Steve